911review.org: Trojan Horse
appeared in September of 2003,
and quickly gained prominence with the help of thousands of
links from other websites purporting to expose the falsity
of the official account of the 9/11/2001 attack.
To many skeptics of that account,
the site appeared to fulfill an important function:
providing a clearinghouse of information and links
to ongoing research on the 9/11/01 attack.
However, a critical reading of the site
supports a different view:
that it functions as a
discrediting the case that the attack was a false-flag operation
by loudly embracing that conclusion
while supporting it with only specious arguments.
This site deconstructs
to disentangle the myth from the reality.
It examines the pages of
from the point of view of a reader attempting to learn
about the attack for the first time,
whose experience will be very different from
readers who have already accepted the premise that
the attack was an inside job.
This site also examines some of the subconscious messages
in the pages of
This page provides an overview of our analysis of
More specific comments are found on marked-up
copies of pages from
(See "Top Topics" on left.)
The pages were cached over a 10-day period in late January, 2004.
They include all of the pages listed under "Top Topics"
and most of the local pages they linked to.
911Review.org Preaches to the Choir
One of the most obvious features of 911Review.org
is its overt political message.
This message confronts readers before
they have a chance to read any of the site's content,
presented in the form of banners, such as the following:
Many of the pages begin with a large image,
Osama bin Laden standing behind the President's podium
George W. Bush with a turban and beard.
If you read the text of the pages, you will find that
Osama bin Laden is consistently referred to as
the alleged hijackers as
the media as "McMedia", and George W. Bush as
To reader who accepts the premise that the attack was engineered
by people inside the U.S. government,
these devices will likely elicit a chuckle and subconsciously
reinforce the idea that
is on their side,
going to bat against the murderous engineers of this scam.
Such readers will have to approach the site critically
to understand its effect on newcomers to the
idea that the attack was a scam,
who will likely be persuaded only that
the authors of
-- or worse, all skeptics of the official story --
are ideologues who put politics ahead of logic and science.
911Review.org Filters out Crucial Information
uses a variety of techniques to dissuade the reader from
questioning the core lies of the attack,
such as that the towers' collapses were gravity-driven,
while appearing to attack those lies.
911Review.org Avoids Quality Sites
its goal as providing
a succinct summary of the current research and conclusions,
that can be used as a point of reference
for people in the media or decision makers.
It claims that it
"summarizes the most important aspects of the current research,
and cascades down through summaries to more detailed reviews".
The scope and structure of the site reinforce the idea that
it attempts to summarize and link to the breadth of sites
with important contributions to understanding 9/11/01.
It is therefore interesting that 911Review.org
chooses to avoid even mentioning several prominent sites
with major contributions to uncovering the
means, motives, and methods behind the attack and cover-up.
911Review.org Avoids Best Evidence
has the curious habit of using weak arguments to support its points,
while ignoring much stronger arguments.
fails to mention standard operating procedure.
the only page about George W. Bush's response to the crisis,
omits mention of the eight or more minutes he stayed seated in the
classroom after being informed that the second tower had been hit
and the country was under attack.
is about problems with the reliability of the translation
of the confession videotape,
failing to mention that the actor on the tape is, on close inspection,
clearly not Osama bin Laden.
and other pages about the alleged hijackers
fail to point out that none of them were good pilots.
The New York Times quoted Hanjour's flight instructor as saying
"I'm still amazed to this day that he could have flown into the Pentagon.
He could not fly at all."
mention that the flight-routes of the commandeered planes took
hundreds of miles from their targets,
exposing them to certain interception
had standard operating procedures been followed.
That simple point would do far more to undermine the hijacking myth
than all of
ramblings about the hijackers' identities, and their and bin Laden's
connections to the U.S. government.
fails to point out that Building 7 fell straight down,
that its rubble pile was tidily piled up almost entirely within its footprint,
and that precisely synchronized and symmetric damage
(controlled demolition) is required to avoid toppling.
mis-describes the explosions of the towers,
avoiding mentioning the volume to which the dust clouds swelled,
and then debunks the idea the jet fuel can melt steel,
when the official explanation is that the fires softened, not melted, the steel.
911Review.org Buries the Core of the Crime
Concerning the heart of the attack,
the buildings pulverized to dust and shredded steel at Ground Zero,
is remarkably quiet for a site that pretends to embrace the physical evidence.
You will find no photographs of
and few photographs of the buildings collapsing.
- The core of the attack -- the demolition of the Twin Towers --
rates only one page at the end of the outline,
as if it is only a footnote.
Also, by appearing after directory pages such as
it is removed from the part of the outline detailing the attack.
- The massive evidence destruction operation at Ground Zero
is barely mentioned.
As in the site at large, the anthrax attack gets
top billing on the
911Review.org's weak page on the air defense stand-down,
is under OngoingCoverup
and is dissociated from the myth of the hijackers.
None of the several pages on bin Laden or the alleged hijackers
refers to the stand-down,
which completely undermines the hijacking story.
avoids the subject of remote control,
the Top Topics pages being free of any reference to it,
even though it is the central element of the alternative
to the hijacking myth.
911Review.org Discredits Vital Research
While 911Review.org filters out and de-emphasizes
the most essential information about the attack,
it has to give lip service to core realities of the attack
such as the WTC demolition
in order to maintain its myth.
But its descriptions of those realities
are contextualized and presented
in terms that sound so incredible they are self-discrediting.
And it embeds them in a morass of
bad page design with text lacking in introduction,
and consistently over-reaching claims.
911Review.org Features Ludicrous Theories
selects just two theories for concerted promotion:
the missile-shooting South Tower plane,
and the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium super-fire.
In addition to explicitly promoting these theories,
it promotes other discrediting ideas by recommending their proponents.
page describes Rosalee Grable, AKA WebFairy,
"some of the best analysis of the videos of 9/11",
and gives her site top billing on the page.
is a tireless advocate for the
and NO-PLANE-THERE 'theories',
concerning the Tower crashes.
WebFairy's site is also promoted by
as one of its mirrors.
maintains that super-fires lasting days burned at the Pentagon,
and suggests that indicates a fire fueled by Depleted Uranium
used in an attack vehicle warhead.
The idea that DU was used in the attack,
especially in large amounts,
directly contradicts the idea that it was an inside job
involving Pentagon insiders such as Donald Rumsfeld,
since such an incident would easily contaminate the entire building.
- An absurd theory about a cylinder mounted under
the South Tower plane is featured on the
Flights pages and elsewhere.
It is used on the
page to bury and discredit video evidence of the
Twin Towers' demolition.
911Review.org is Full of Specious Arguments
engages in sloppy reasoning and observation throughout.
exhibits a pattern of making over-reaching conclusions from cited materials,
while being more accurate when asserting things without backup.
Many such assertions sound so incredible
they will be rejected by most readers,
who will associate the ideas,
such as the towers turning to dust,
with flawed reporting and analysis.
concludes "the FBI knew in advance"
because they raided an IT company hosting Muslim websites the week before.
implies that the flyby of a bird in the foreground of a video of the
South Tower collision
is actually a "Mach 10" aircraft.
claims that a video shows that Building 7
was only superficially hit by debris when 1 and 2 collapsed;
where the video shows only the upper 20 stories of the building's north face,
and WTC 1 and 2 were to Building 7's south.
fails to mention the evidence that does support the claim:
aerial photographs of Ground Zero showing the extent of the Towers'
claims (in several places)
that the damage to the Pentagon could only be caused by a
when, in fact,
the damage pattern
is consistent with the crash of a Boeing 757.
it claims that the engine rotor photographed at the Pentagon
was too small to be a 757 engine by implying that only the much
larger fans have streamliners,
when in fact the smaller-diameter parts of engines behind the fans
have them too.
(Look at the tapered section just aft of the fan housing on any turbofan.)
- It makes the unfounded assertion that
the plane that hit the South Tower looks too small to be a 767
and that the engine debris don't match, in
it claims that the maneuver performed by the plane approaching the Pentagon
involved a 4.5-G turn,
when in fact it was less than 1.35 Gs.
twists Von Bulow's statement that the attack involved
"years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry"
into a conclusion that it was
"a massive operation by what we have been referring
to as the military-industrial complex".
This non-sequitur implies that the attack involved thousands of insiders,
which would have made it virtually impossible to keep secret.
911Review.org Makes Over-Reaching Claims
911Review.org claims it was
"set up by a group of academics and former academics living in Canada",
but the text certainly doesn't read like the work of
scholars, particularly in the sciences.
Scientists almost always take care to qualify their statements
and avoid universal quantifiers,
such as always or everything.
is filled with blanket statements,
so unqualified that they can't possibly be true.
is a case in point.
911Review.org Mis-Characterizes Key Evidence
is full of inaccurate descriptions of key events and evidence.
These descriptions, usually free of supporting material or links,
are yet another tool used by
to discredit ideas such as the demolition of the WTC.
claims that there were molten pools of steel in the basements of the
Twin Towers five weeks after the attack, when in fact the excavation
had barely begun, and it was still about five months before the evidence of
previously molten steel would be discovered.
"when the Twin Towers exploded, the fires had almost gone out",
when in fact there were very serious --
though not structurally threatening --
fires in the North Tower
when it collapsed.
claims that there was
"no airliner debris"
at the Pentagon, an assertion clearly contradicted by
photographs showing the area near the facade.
page implies that it took the FBI 16 days to publish
the list of 19 hijackers,
when in fact they had done so within 72 hours of the attack.
911Review.org is Dishonest
presents itself as speaking for the community of skeptics of
the 9/11/01 official myth. See
It pretends to be about reviewing research on the attack,
when it appears to be designed to divert the reader
from core realities of the attack,
such as the World Trade Center demolition,
and discredits good research by associating it
with absurd theories and sloppy analysis.
Many of the claims on the
are at odds with the actual content of the site.
claims that it
summarizes the most important aspects of the current research,
when in fact it censors the most important research,
analysis of the energy requirements to expand the dust clouds
generated by the tower collapses.
claims that it
cascades down through summaries to more detailed reviews,
but we cannot find any detailed reviews on the site,
with the exception of the page
godfather of the Pentagon no-plane hoax.
claims that it
"represents the consensus of a group of 9/11 scientists and researchers",
when it features
that no self-respecting scientist
"we analyze the official reports from Congress like the House Science subcommittee,
and a government agencies like FEMA, and cooperating industry groups like ASCE",
when in fact 911Review.org is free of any such analysis.
Nowhere does it address the official explanations for the collapse of
the Twin Towers, for example.
claims that it stores
"thousands of images, and hundreds of video clips,
all available to everyone on the Internet",
but we can find no evidence of these elusive archives on
"has become the number one site for 9/11 research on the Internet today",
without producing any evidence to support this claim.
It could easily provide access statistics, but does not.
claims the work of others as its own.
For example, its link to a page from Guardian is used to support the idea that
"analyzes the official reports".
page seems to claim credit for research done by Michael Ruppert.
Links to archives by others appear to be basis for
claims that it has vast archives of images and videos.
911Review.org is Treacherous
The visibility of a website is largely a function of
the number of links to it --
both because links direct traffic to a site,
and because links increase its search engine ranking,
bringing it closer to the top of search results.
Most links to a site are created by people sympathetic to its message.
However, through clever design a website may appear to promote a message
while simultaneously undermining it,
encouraging webmasters to link to it
while concealing an agenda that is contrary to their mission.
With its overt political message and strident tone,
attempts to appeal to skeptics who have come to the same conclusions.
Sincere researchers have applauded
for its hard-hitting approach.
Readers who have not yet accepted those conclusions
are likely to find
approach either unpersuasive,
or persuasive that charges of the attack being a scam
are politically motivated.
911Review.org appears to be designed
to accomplish two simultaneous goals
targeted at two different groups:
People in the first group will easily overlook the many ways in which
discredits 9/11 skepticism in the eyes of people in the second group.
Familiarity with the the "9/11 movement" serves as a subconscious antidote
to the many manipulations that will trip up the newcomer.
Familiarity allows one
to find Jeff King's site among the mine-fields of
dead links and nonsensical sites,
to fill in the gaps in the weak and partial arguments,
and to provide missing context.
Unsupported assertions that will strike the newcomer as patently false
will be readily accepted by those who have studied
the shocking facts of 9/11/01 and seen the evidence elsewhere.
- To gain the trust of people in the community of "9/11 skeptics"
by strongly asserting that the attack was an inside job,
while seeming to back up the claim with abundant resources.
- To convince the larger public that the skepticism about the
official story is based on prejudice, sloppy research, and bad science.
By tailoring its message to appeal to "9/11 skeptics"
and misrepresenting itself as a hard-working ally,
encourages other sites to link to it,
increasing its reach.
The perpetrators of the 9/11/01 attack are clearly experts in memetics,
having correctly predicted the success of the
plane-crash-fells-skyscraper meme, for example.
It would be surprising if such expertise were not also applied at the back end
in the form of websites designed to discredit the skeptics.
damages the cause of exposing the 9/11/2001 attack as a false-flag
by steering people away from quality sites,
and contextualizing the work of serious researchers
as conclusion-driven nonsense.
Whether by design or incompetence,
functions as a destructive meme,
setting back the campaign to educate the public about the reality of 9/11/01.